Having now the ability to translate ancient Greek, and currently, for class, tranlating parts of Aristophanes' Frogs, I can say there is no problem with translated works. Yes, a bit might be lost in translation, it's true, yet even learning a language doesn't necessarially help with that. I see people in my Latin class that are technically learning Latin, but have no sense for the language or culture, and hence not for the literature. Sure, they might be able to translate and read sentences, but their translations and pronunciation show a lack of feeling for the intent.
Really, let them be translated, and enjoy them for that. Sometimes, the translation can even stand on par, or come very near, to the original. Take the Iliad - then put Lattimore's translation beside it. Okay, so it doesn't literally say 'but gave their bodies to be the delicate feasting of dogs, and all birds.' It goes more like, heck what is it? Something like 'autous d' heloria...' etc. Can't quite recall the Greek. But the thing is, there is no word 'delicate' in there, nor is there the word 'body', nor yet, really, the general 'bird'. Delicate is a whimsy of his own, body is his way of rendering 'autous' (which is a 'them' in the accusative, but is very difficult to translate correctly in this context), and the word for 'bird' actually refers more to birds of prey - I personally put the word raptor there when I translated it. The thing is, guys, I'm in second year Greek. I've studied this stuff for more than 99.9% of people would ever care to, and it takes be about... probably about 20 minutes to translate a line currently. Try reading a book at that pace. The translations are there for a reason. I dare you to find someone who can sight-read Homer. I don't know if anyone can, these days. And this also doesn't change the fact that, even if you CAN read it, you're still translating into your native tongue and 'thought world' mentally. In fact, you might well be making more mistakes and missing more of a point than a good, altered, translation does.
You see, to want overmuch for that level of purity is actually not understanding literature as a whole. The problem is, you're too concerned with the minutia of each line, that you fail to see the big picture, and how the work impacts the literature and culture into which it has been translated. As someone who is engaged in the process of translation - translating revered works of antiquity, at that - I think that the puritist stance is mere fanboyism, and is in fact detrimental to the art. It would keep it in the hands of a select few, and would cause it to stagnate. In the same way that LOTR was adapted for the screen, so words are adapted to another language. But still I've seen people complaining about how the movie was treated! I do - or did - know more about the Tolkien mythos than most of them, but THEY are the ones complaining. I have always, and will always, find absolute purity in literary translation not only ridiculous, but an enemy to literature itself.
This isn't to say, however, that when one wishes to retranslate Chrono Trigger that this is a bad idea. Retranslations are alright. They can do things differently, or perhaps a new translator can do things to a greater degree of accuracy. My issue is with those who disdain the translations for inherent inaccuracy, which seems to me a manifestation of fanboyism. What's not understood is that, even if you understand that language, that's only half the battle - you have to get into the cultural mindset. And that is rather difficult. Good translations change things not for the sake of changing, but it has in fact been altered by the translator who DOES understand both cultures, so that idioms and the like may be understood. The purists look at it and go - hey, this doesn't mean the same thing at all! They said this, not this! But they have missed a major point. Just because they might understand the literal idom or intent in the source language, doesn't mean that everyone else will - to most others, it may well seem like gibberish. However, literature is something that transcends such boundaries, and good translators will to an extent understand this. If they are really good, they can keep the feel and mood and intent of the original, but adapt it so that the culture into which it is being translated can have the feeling for it. Or, rather, what it is is that the translator will understand what feelings the source would have invoked in the original language, and values choosing words that will invoke the same feeling in the tranlated culture over accuracy. Those who know both langauges - and who I think are more prone to be purists - often can't understand this, because to them the original is TOO clear. They treat literature as too cut and dry (try translating that idiom into German and see what they say; you can't be exact, you have to use an equivalent) working my literal accuracy rather than what the intent behind the words is. Like I said, I've been working with translation for a bit now, and even in the classics that I love dearly, I'm willing to allow some leeway. The only thing that irritates me is that when people insist on newer, worse, translations when there is a perfectly majestic one already in existance. Why the heck do we need these 'modern' translations of the Iliad, when Lattimore's is scarcely fifty years old? They sure aren't adding either accuracy or artistry to it.
Oh, by the way, the characters have lost their original charm? Oh, no, no, no! They have lost the thing that made them charming in Greek (or in this subject Japanese) - but in return they've gained the equivalent charm in the English 'thought world.'
The thing is, heck, in that case, pretty well none of you really know the Greek myths! Because, you know, there is a lot to the story and to the feel brought forward in the names and in the syntax. This much I've learned, that the myths we learned in earlier years and the studies in High School were rather misleading, and didn't properly convey the feel of it at all! But is that to say, then, that we should isolate ourselves from those myths, stop studying it in High School, just because the translation is, basically, bad? Absolutely not. If I were to ask you what is the character trait of Agamemnon, of those of you who know the character, how many would say that he's a power hungry and self-serving politican? How many know the older character of Homer, and Aeschylus, the noble and caring king - proud, yes, but only as befits an aristocrat of his age. However, there is allowances, and yes, the alteration is worth it.
So I'm a staunch advocate of translation, even alteration, to fit the needs of a foreign audience. Just today I argued for the validity of the movie Troy as a movie translation of the Trojan war, dismissing the alterations as being in the service of art and literature. The same is said for this. Because you know what: if Troy had been told as it 'should' have been, no one would have gone to see it, save for the Classicists. So go ahead, enjoy your originals - just like I enjoy my originals - but be mindful of the purpose and virtue of translations, even ones that alter.
